2002 PLP 2303 (YLR)

(4) Whether defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession? OPD (5) Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is correct valuation and its effect? OPD. (6) Whether plaintiff and his relatives have sold away their entire land to defendants persons at various times as is explained in the written statements? OPD (7) Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (8) Whether suit is Benami one? If so, its effect? OPD (9) Whether plaintiff should have filed application in District Court and the suit is not maintainable? OPD (10) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD (11) Whether plaintiff is owner of suit land and entries in Revenue Record in the names of defendants are against the facts and incorrect? OPP (12) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of suit land? OPP (13) Whether suit‑land is Wakf property if so, its effect on the rights of the parties? OPD (14) Whether the suit is frivolous and vexatious? If so defendants are entitled to recover special costs from the plaintiff? If so, to what extent? OPD (15) Relief. In support of their respective stand both the parties adduced evidence.

6. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 20‑7‑1987, which has been maintained by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 7‑1‑1990. Hence the instant civil revision.

7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

8. Stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that after returning findings on Issue No. 10 it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to return the plaint and not to record findings in respect of other issues, so the matter may be placed before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In support of his said contention he has placed reliance upon Allah Jawai v. Ghulam Fareed (PLD 1952 Lahore 31). He further contended that he has been non‑suited on the ground that property had been acquired by the Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab vide Notification, dated 14‑3‑1980. He contended that this plea could also not be taken into consideration, as the aforesaid notification had not been issued in the official Gazette by that time and notification if not issued in the official gazette, does not take affect and placed reliance upon Chief Administrator Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore v. Mst. Nooran and 7 others (1980 CLC 378 Karachi). He further contended that as said notification was not published in the official Gazettee, so it will not be deemed to be a notice to pubic in general and will not oust the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. He also submitted that ownership of the plaintiff/petitioner stands proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, which has not been appreciated by the Courts below. He thus submitted that judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable and the same be set aside.

9. Converse the impugned judgments have been supported by the learned counsel for the Chief Administrator, Auqaf Punjab. He contended that suit‑land has been acquired vide Notification, dated 14‑3‑1980, so the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the matter exclusively fell within the jurisdiction of learned District Judge, concerned, as is contemplated by section 7 of West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 and section 11 of Punjab Waqf Property Ordinance, 1979. He further contended that C.P.C. is not applicable in case of appeal filed under Special Act and as such the very suit was not maintainable as it has not been filed within 30 days from the date of notification, as required by section 11 of the Ordinance (IV of 1979). He further contended that Notification in the instant case having been published in the official Gazette is a notice to the public in general, as such the objection of the learned counsel for ‑the plaintiff/petitioner that as the notification has not been published in the official Gazette, also looses its force. He thus submitted that judgments and decrees of the Court9 below do not call for any interference and civil revision merits dismissal.

10. Admittedly land in dispute stands acquired by the Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab vide notification, dated 14‑3‑1980, which has also been published in the official Gazette. The mere fact that said Notification contained an endorsement to the effect that "to be published in the official Gazette" does not mean that notification had not been issued and published in the official Gazette. The learned counsel for the defendant/respondent. (Chief Administrator Auqaf Department) has brought on record a copy of the official Gazette containing publication of Notification, dated 14‑3‑1980.

11. Since the land in dispute has been acquired by the Auqaf Department, vide p notification, dated 14‑3‑1980 so said notification could only be challenged under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961 and under section 11 of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 and the proceedings could be initiated in the Court of learned District Judge. Thus the very institution of suit is not in accordance with law. The findings of the Courts below on this score are unexceptionable. There is no force in this civil revision and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./B‑112/L Revision dismissed.